Its pretty much as expected. All bluff and bluster from the EU painting the UK out as being inflexible when it wants to make it so awkward that they hope we will back down and withdraw our article 50 application.

Neither side wants to be seen to back down - at least not until it comes to the crunch. We are leaving and its a matter of whether the EU want to let us walk for nothing but without a trade deal (the former is bad for them, and the latter is bad for both sides).

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

The UK says how can they sort out the terms of the future border when they don't know what the terms of the agreement will be like re: single market, customs union etc etc

And herein lays the problem.

Michel Barnier has been given a mandate from the other 27 and is not able to amend his negotiating stance without the permission of the other 27, where on the other hand David Davis can.

This was pointed out quite some time ago, that the very nature of the EU meant it was unable to be flexible simply because it needed the agreement of all or the majority of 27 Countries, all of whom have their own agenda at heart over the future of the EU and Europe.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cade

Cade

""Barnier retorted that ?Brexit means Brexit?, when he set out why the UK?s decision to leave the single market would have consequences.

He said some of the recent British proposals showed ?a sort of nostalgia in the form of specific requests which would amount to continuing to enjoy the benefits of the single market and EU membership without actually being part of it?.

?The UK wants to take back control, wants to adopt its own standards and regulations, but it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. This is simply impossible. You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order,? he said.""

Edited August 31, 2017 by Cade

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

FWJ

FWJ

The right-wing Tories wanted us out so they could rip up workers-rights legislation and turn us into a low-wage sweatshop economy. And they hoodwinked the gullible and na?ve with rubbish about "?350 million a week for the NHS".

I'm surprised the EU haven't just told us to **** off.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

frankblack

frankblack

No hard border but no freedom of movement is the circle that needs squared, I reckon.

The EU must know why there cannot be a hard border there. The freedom of movement within the whole of Ireland is the negotiating point, and I am sure flexibility can be made. The rest of the UK has a hard border with the Irish mainland so that isn't an issue.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

FWJ

FWJ

The EU must know why there cannot be a hard border there. The freedom of movement within the whole of Ireland is the negotiating point, and I am sure flexibility can be made. The rest of the UK has a hard border with the Irish mainland so that isn't an issue.

I'm not sure it does. A passport isn't necessary to travel between Britain and the RoI.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

The right-wing Tories wanted us out so they could rip up workers-rights legislation and turn us into a low-wage sweatshop economy. And they hoodwinked the gullible and na?ve with rubbish about "?350 million a week for the NHS".

I'm surprised the EU haven't just told us to **** off.

Bit of a bugger if Labour win the next General Election, which is highly possible, would kind off upset the evil Tories plans somewhat.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Ulysses

A photo driving licence would have sufficed. It was photo ID for the plane that you required.

Do you think you would need a passport to take the ferry from Holyhead to Dublin?

Legally, it would have sufficed, as long as the immigration officer was satisfied with the ID. Although legally British and Irish citizens can travel freely between the countries without passports, Irish immigration law requires people to show documentation that proves that they are entitled to avail of that facility. In effect, that means that a UK or Irish citizen who doesn't produce a passport can be denied entry or delayed if their photo ID doesn't satisfy the immigration officer as to their citizenship.

If you attempt to have an open border between NI and the Irish Republic, but with restrictions on freedom of movement, the problem is that freedom of movement across the border will be confined to citizens of two countries, but freedom of movement in the Irish Republic right up to the border will be open to citizens of 32 countries. Meanwhile, freedom of movement on the NI side may be open to some countries with whom the UK has agreements, including people like business travellers and tourists. Some of those might be from EEA member states, while others may be restricted from entry to the EEA. That means that both sides will have to have border and passport controls to allow and prevent different people from different nationalities from crossing between the EU and the UK. If anyone thinks that can be done without physical passport and ID checks, please post and say how.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Ulysses

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

Legally, it would have sufficed, as long as the immigration officer was satisfied with the ID. Although legally British and Irish citizens can travel freely between the countries without passports, Irish immigration law requires people to show documentation that proves that they are entitled to avail of that facility. In effect, that means that a UK or Irish citizen who doesn't produce a passport can be denied entry or delayed if their photo ID doesn't satisfy the immigration officer as to their citizenship.

If you attempt to have an open border between NI and the Irish Republic, but with restrictions on freedom of movement, the problem is that freedom of movement across the border will be confined to citizens of two countries, but freedom of movement in the Irish Republic right up to the border will be open to citizens of 32 countries. Meanwhile, freedom of movement on the NI side may be open to some countries with whom the UK has agreements, including people like business travellers and tourists. Some of those might be from EEA member states, while others may be restricted from entry to the EEA. That means that both sides will have to have border and passport controls to allow and prevent different people from different nationalities from crossing between the EU and the UK. If anyone thinks that can be done without physical passport and ID checks, please post and say how.

Excellently explained, this is why the UK can't agree to what the EU wants until the UK knows or at least has some idea what the relationship will be between the UK & the EU.

The EU are insisting on the UK agreeing to something which nobody knows what it'll look like at present.

Once both the UK & the EU know what the final relationship will be, then a system can be put in place with regards to the Irish border, something which might at least stand a chance of working.

This of course means that both sides need to compromise or at least work towards a common goal, with regards to the Irish Border.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

I suppose we will have to compromise but if I was European I'd wonder why I had to. This is a king-sized ****-up of the UK's making. Why should they give us any slack?

Because the EU have got themselves in a pickle over the Irish Border problem.

The EU have stated that it will not accept a 'hard border' between the North & the South, they don't want border checks and the likes, however the EU's own rules state that if a country is not in the Customs Union then there needs to be a 'hard border' between them, so in effect for the Irish Border to work as the EU wants, the EU has to then disregard it's own rules, or at least that's my understanding of it.

I'm sure I posted links to this question on another thread, several weeks ago.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

FWJ

FWJ

Because the EU have got themselves in a pickle over the Irish Border problem.

The EU have stated that it will not accept a 'hard border' between the North & the South, they don't want border checks and the likes, however the EU's own rules state that if a country is not in the Customs Union then there needs to be a 'hard border' between them, so in effect for the Irish Border to work as the EU wants, the EU has to then disregard it's own rules, or at least that's my understanding of it.

I'm sure I posted links to this question on another thread, several weeks ago.

And the cause of this "pickle"?

And you can bet your boots that at the first breath of compromise on the UK's part the Murdoch press and its ilk will squeal like stuck pigs.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

Both sides haven't exactly covered themselves in any glory here, both have been bloody minded about this, and both for different reasons.

Time to stop pussy footing around playing at billy big baws, because there is now the very real prospect that things could slide and descend into a totally unworkable situation, the result of which neither side wants.

Hopefully this prospect will only help to concentrate both sides to get the finger out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Space Mackerel

Because the EU have got themselves in a pickle over the Irish Border problem.

The EU have stated that it will not accept a 'hard border' between the North & the South, they don't want border checks and the likes, however the EU's own rules state that if a country is not in the Customs Union then there needs to be a 'hard border' between them, so in effect for the Irish Border to work as the EU wants, the EU has to then disregard it's own rules, or at least that's my understanding of it.

I'm sure I posted links to this question on another thread, several weeks ago.

And here we have readers, the most illogical post ever on the what's going on between U.K. and EU borders.

The classic Daily Mail reader

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamboX2

JamboX2

Because the EU have got themselves in a pickle over the Irish Border problem.

The EU have stated that it will not accept a 'hard border' between the North & the South, they don't want border checks and the likes, however the EU's own rules state that if a country is not in the Customs Union then there needs to be a 'hard border' between them, so in effect for the Irish Border to work as the EU wants, the EU has to then disregard it's own rules, or at least that's my understanding of it.

I'm sure I posted links to this question on another thread, several weeks ago.

By pickle do you mean the Irish government insisted the commission make this a key point to be dealt with first because their economy (and NI's) needs an open border and because it is a very vital part of the Good Friday agreement?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Ulysses

Because the EU have got themselves in a pickle over the Irish Border problem.

The EU have stated that it will not accept a 'hard border' between the North & the South, they don't want border checks and the likes, however the EU's own rules state that if a country is not in the Customs Union then there needs to be a 'hard border' between them, so in effect for the Irish Border to work as the EU wants, the EU has to then disregard it's own rules, or at least that's my understanding of it.

I'm sure I posted links to this question on another thread, several weeks ago.

That's not exactly correct. The EU will accept a hard border if the UK simply exits in accordance with its declaration, because it has no other choice under the terms of the Treaty. However, if the UK wants any agreement on the terms of its exit or on its relationship with the Union after it exits, the EU will not sign up to an agreement that provides for a hard border. Other issues follow from that, but they aren't the EU's problem.

It's a technicality, but it's an important one. The EU might be setting out a position that involves adjustments to its policies, but it isn't breaching its laws.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Ulysses

Both sides haven't exactly covered themselves in any glory here, both have been bloody minded about this, and both for different reasons.

Time to stop pussy footing around playing at billy big baws, because there is now the very real prospect that things could slide and descend into a totally unworkable situation, the result of which neither side wants.

Hopefully this prospect will only help to concentrate both sides to get the finger out.

I'm satisfied with how our side have handled this so far.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

By pickle do you mean the Irish government insisted the commission make this a key point to be dealt with first because their economy (and NI's) needs an open border and because it is a very vital part of the Good Friday agreement?

By pickle, I meant that it isn't as simple and straight forward as either side would like it to be.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

That's not exactly correct. The EU will accept a hard border if the UK simply exits in accordance with its declaration, because it has no other choice under the terms of the Treaty. However, if the UK wants any agreement on the terms of its exit or on its relationship with the Union after it exits, the EU will not sign up to an agreement that provides for a hard border. Other issues follow from that, but they aren't the EU's problem.

It's a technicality, but it's an important one. The EU might be setting out a position that involves adjustments to its policies, but it isn't breaching its laws.

As usual you give a reasoned and thoughtful explanation, something many others could learn from, including myself.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Geoff Kilpatrick

Legally, it would have sufficed, as long as the immigration officer was satisfied with the ID. Although legally British and Irish citizens can travel freely between the countries without passports, Irish immigration law requires people to show documentation that proves that they are entitled to avail of that facility. In effect, that means that a UK or Irish citizen who doesn't produce a passport can be denied entry or delayed if their photo ID doesn't satisfy the immigration officer as to their citizenship.

If you attempt to have an open border between NI and the Irish Republic, but with restrictions on freedom of movement, the problem is that freedom of movement across the border will be confined to citizens of two countries, but freedom of movement in the Irish Republic right up to the border will be open to citizens of 32 countries. Meanwhile, freedom of movement on the NI side may be open to some countries with whom the UK has agreements, including people like business travellers and tourists. Some of those might be from EEA member states, while others may be restricted from entry to the EEA. That means that both sides will have to have border and passport controls to allow and prevent different people from different nationalities from crossing between the EU and the UK. If anyone thinks that can be done without physical passport and ID checks, please post and say how.

I take your point on the hypothetical. I was pointing out the realities of the CTA at present, i.e. passport not necessary but advisable to have photo ID, particularly on planes.

My hypothetical is that a Norwayesque model will be the denouement in any case with the UK paying for single market access and freedom of movement restrictions quietly dropped.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow

A Boy Named Crow

Surely the simplest and most sensible thing would be for the UK government to just admit Brexit is a really silly idea, pitch up at the next round of negotiations and say "Look, we've had a think, and we've changed our minds. Let's just forget about all this Brexit carry on". There'd be no border issues with Ireland, no tricky trade negotiations with just about every country on Earth. Just continued membership of a body that has brought stability to Europe for well over half a century (no mean feat when you look at the last few hundred years).

Democracy would take a hit, sure, but is that really a bad thing? Look where it's got us!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

JamboX2

JamboX2

By pickle, I meant that it isn't as simple and straight forward as either side would like it to be.

Indeed. But whilst the EU cannot act in a manner which is (a) against the terms of it's treaties and ( b ) against the will of it's member states and their own bilateral obligations, the UK should not operate out with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Yet we are wilfully staggering towards that.

Be better if we just gave up trying to make ourselves worse off and in effect an EU Colony and got on with being a full member.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

frankblack

frankblack

Surely the simplest and most sensible thing would be for the UK government to just admit Brexit is a really silly idea, pitch up at the next round of negotiations and say "Look, we've had a think, and we've changed our minds. Let's just forget about all this Brexit carry on". There'd be no border issues with Ireland, no tricky trade negotiations with just about every country on Earth. Just continued membership of a body that has brought stability to Europe for well over half a century (no mean feat when you look at the last few hundred years).

Democracy would take a hit, sure, but is that really a bad thing? Look where it's got us!

Nope. That is exactly what the EU want us to do, in much the same way as they forced countries that rejected their referendums to keep having more of them until they got the answer they wanted.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow

A Boy Named Crow

Nope. That is exactly what the EU want us to do, in much the same way as they forced countries that rejected their referendums to keep having more of them until they got the answer they wanted.

The people voted to leave and that is what has to be delivered.

A lot of people would have voted to leave on the basis of lies and spurious arguments. It wasn't a well informed decision, and given the tightness of the outcome and the likely negative impact it will have, I'd say in this instance "the people" got it wrong and our elected government should have the balls to call it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Jambo-Jimbo

A lot of people would have voted to leave on the basis of lies and spurious arguments. It wasn't a well informed decision, and given the tightness of the outcome and the likely negative impact it will have, I'd say in this instance "the people" got it wrong and our elected government should have the balls to call it.

Equally a lot of people may have voted to stay on the basis of lies and spurious arguments.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow

A Boy Named Crow

Equally a lot of people may have voted to stay on the basis of lies and spurious arguments.

Both leave and remain were so full of BS.

Which is why it should never have been out to a vote in the first place. The result was too close, and the impact too serious for it to be unthinkable that the decision be reversed by parliament...or rather it should be possible, I doubt our current group of politicians have a long enough view, or enough backbone to make it happen though.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

frankblack

frankblack

Which is why it should never have been out to a vote in the first place. The result was too close, and the impact too serious for it to be unthinkable that the decision be reversed by parliament...or rather it should be possible, I doubt our current group of politicians have a long enough view, or enough backbone to make it happen though.

My parents and many others of their generation we were lied to when they voted to join in the 70s, which is why so many voted to leave. Your argument makes no sense - don't bother taking action because its too much hassle.

The people voted and I agree with Jambo-Jimbo that lies were on both sides. Now it is time to move on and begin this process, when the EU decide to actually start negotiating rather than telling the UK they can't get anything.

If we head for WTO trade rules, then a lot of countries that have high exports to the UK won't be too chuffed.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Seymour M Hersh

A lot of people would have voted to leave on the basis of lies and spurious arguments. It wasn't a well informed decision, and given the tightness of the outcome and the likely negative impact it will have, I'd say in this instance "the people" got it wrong and our elected government should have the balls to call it.

The government produced and sent out a booklet to every household explaining what everything meant. go look up the word democracy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Seymour M Hersh

My parents and many others of their generation we were lied to when they voted to join in the 70s, which is why so many voted to leave. Your argument makes no sense - don't bother taking action because its too much hassle.

The people voted and I agree with Jambo-Jimbo that lies were on both sides. Now it is time to move on and begin this process, when the EU decide to actually start negotiating rather than telling the UK they can't get anything.

If we head for WTO trade rules, then a lot of countries that have high exports to the UK won't be too chuffed.

Surely we'd then set up trade deals with countries. The WTO trade rules woud be a short term fix that get's us away the EU without a deal (with them).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Socrates

Socrates

My parents and many others of their generation we were lied to when they voted to join in the 70s, which is why so many voted to leave. Your argument makes no sense - don't bother taking action because its too much hassle.

The people voted and I agree with Jambo-Jimbo that lies were on both sides. Now it is time to move on and begin this process, when the EU decide to actually start negotiating rather than telling the UK they can't get anything.

If we head for WTO trade rules, then a lot of countries that have high exports to the UK won't be too chuffed.

It's become pretty apparent that the countries that export significantly to Britain have decided that they're comfortable with the EU approach to negotiations. I'm curious where

this belief that the EU is suddenly about to shift its position comes from.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Socrates

Socrates

Surely we'd then set up trade deals with countries. The WTO trade rules woud be a short term fix that get's us away the EU without a deal (with them).

We would try. The problems with that approach are the importance of the EU to our economy, and the fact that there are few easily negotiated deals out there. The EU already has deals in place with most countries where that's politically practical on both sides. For example, if we want a deal with India, then we would likely have to agree to a more liberal immigration policy to get that done. Hence, the EU has no free trade deal with India. We saw the problems of negotiating a deal with the US with all the chlorinated chicken flap earlier this year

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I P Knightley

I P Knightley

Deadringers have done a good job. I can't see the guy on telly nor hear his name on the radio without muttering "Brexit Bulldog here!" under my breath

Yesterday's guff from Liam Fox that we are being 'blackmailed' got my back up.

The EU member states value stability much more than they value a trade deal with the UK. We buy 3% of their collective exports, they are more than half of our exports. These are countries that have suffered economic crises, hyperinflation, communism and fascism. Stability matters to them above all and we are a source of instability.

Ideological, nationalistic fools like Liam Fox are probably genuinely confused and frustrated because they were unable to look at the reality of where Brexit would leave us. At some point, they have to recognise that "Project Fear" was actually "Project Face Reality". They may well know it but they can't admit it.

We were in a relatively weak position when we had one of the best performing economies in Europe, because we just aren't that big or rich a country. But now we're the worst performing country in the EU, we are essentially irrelevant to them. We have to make major concessions if we are going to get a trade deal with the EU and the Brexit Bulldog attitude doesn't lend itself to concession. (They all think they're Maggie Effing Thatcher in her pomp; none of them have the balls she had.)